Petrobrasbet.bet, Petrobrasbet.com

The timeline behind petrobrasbet.bet

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Petróleo Brasileiro S.A - Petrobras v. Yiapaoher Sengchanh Case No. D2026-1268 1. The Parties Complainant is Petróleo Brasileiro S.A - Petrobras, Brazil, represented by Siqueira Castro Advogados, Brazil. Respondent is Yiapaoher Sengchanh, Cambodia. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar The disputed domain names <petrobrasbet.bet> and <petrobrasbet.com> are registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 24, 2026. On March 25, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On March 26, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent (“Pitou Thaong”) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on March 26, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on March 26, 2026. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 13, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 3, 2026. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on May 4, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Fernando Triana Soto as the sole panelist in this matter on May 13, 2026. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background Complainant is a globally recognized Brazilian energy company, notably known for its activities in the oil sector. Complainant’s trademark PETROBRAS has been registered worldwide. Among others, Complainant owns the following registrations: - PETROBRÁS, before the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office, registration No. 002709007, registered on July 12, 1962, in international class 1; - PETROBRAS, before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, registration No. 77976086, registered on September 1, 2009, in international class 42; and - PETROBRAS, before the Colombian Trademark Office, registration No. 444418, registered on February 29, 2012, in international class 42. Complainant owns the domain name <petrobras.com>. The disputed domain names were registered on October 2, 2025, and resolve to online gambling websites. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for the cancellation of the disputed domain names. Notably, Complainant contends that it is a globally recognized Brazilian energy company and holds the rights to the highly renowned PETROBRAS trademark in Brazil and in over 20 other jurisdictions. Complainant has established substantial brand recognition and has registered and used official domain names containing “petrobras” since 1996. The disputed domain names incorporate the word “petrobras,“ making them identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's trade name, and trademark, respectively. Respondent does not operate any business under the name “petrobras”, and has never used this term to identify their own products or services. To Complainant's knowledge, Respondent does not own any trademark registrations or applications for the word “petrobras”. Complainant is the exclusive owner of the trademark and has never authorized Respondent to use it, whether as a trademark or within a domain name. Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names, nor is it using them for a bona fide offering of goods or services. page 3 Respondent is actively using the disputed domain names to promote online gambling and betting activities, displaying promotional banners and links to betting platforms. This unauthorized use creates an improper and misleading association between these betting services and the PETROBRAS brand. This behavior deliberately tarnishes the PETROBRAS mark's highly respected reputation, particularly because gambling is currently frowned upon in the country [Brazil]. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”. Likewise, paragraph 10(d) of the Rules, provides that “the Panel shall determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of the evidence”. The Panel wishes to place special emphasis on the evidence filed to prove assertions, which has been thoroughly studied in order to determine its relevance and weight in arriving at a decision. The statements that have been accompanied by evidence have been given more importance than the mere unsubstantiated assertions. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that the disputed domain names be cancelled: (1) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and (3) the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. This discussion, based on the evidentiary support submitted by Complainant, noting that Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions, will be discussed as follows: First of all, the Panel will determine whether or not the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which Complainant has rights. Secondly, the Panel will verify if Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and thirdly, the Panel will establish whether or not the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith by Respondent. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Complainant contends to be the owner of the trademark PETROBRAS in several jurisdictions, since at least 1962 in international classes 1, 4, 35, 37, 39, 40, 42, and 43. It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. page 4 Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain names. Accordingly, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of other term “bet” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Respondent has not rebutted Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The Panel notes the composition of the disputed domain names, which reproduce Complainant’s well-known trademark, and thus, carry a risk of implied affiliation with Complainant. The Panel also notes that the websites hosted at the disputed domain names contain a similar logo to the one registered and used by Complainant, and the Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names aims to trade off of the Complainant’s trademarks for commercial gain. Therefore, no rights or legitimate interests may be found for Respondent. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.1. In the present case, the Panel finds Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its gambling websites, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's well-known mark. In this sense, the Panel considers the disputed domain names were registered and used in bad faith. page 5 The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain names <petrobrasbet.bet> and <petrobrasbet.com> be cancelled. /Fernando Triana Soto/ Fernando Triana Soto Sole Panelist Date: May 27, 2026

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.